Should political candidates appeal to particular racial, ethnic or gender groups? Or should they broaden their message to appeal to all groups?

Such are the questions that presidential campaigns ask themselves in the circular firing squad of blame that follows a big loss.

Four years ago, the big word for Republicans after President Barack Obama's re-election was "diversity." After the party had lost the popular vote in five of the previous six presidential elections, the Republican National Committee's "autopsy" report called for aggressive outreach to blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other growing nonwhite demographic groups that were not voting much for Republicans.

Alas, that approach evaporated with the Grand Old Party's nomination of Donald Trump. Result: The GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the past seven elections — yet bagged enough electoral votes this time to win the White House.

Republicans also crushed Democratic hopes to take back at least the Senate. Instead, the GOP appears to be one Supreme Court appointment away from dominating all three branches of the government. In no way can Democrats find victory in any of that.

Now the big word — or phrase — in Democratic discussions is "identity politics," particularly among those who want to get rid of it.

The term has been around since the 1960s. Think of the period 50 years ago when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s broad humanitarian themes were elbowed aside by the militant "black power" movement.

Although the "black power" movement struck me as a slogan in search of a program, it inspired a new wave of "identity politics" for women, racial groups, ethnic communities and other often-marginalized groups.

The headlines bristle with the term in the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump. "The Politics of Identity — Blessing or Curse?" asks the Huffington Post. "'Identity Politics' and Its Defenders," announces The New York Times.

From the right: "Identity Politics: Liberals, Do the Math," suggests National Review.

Clinton was at her best, Lilla writes, when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and our understanding of democracy. But back at home, he continues, she tended to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, "calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBT and women voters at every stop."

Of course, once you mention some groups, those whom you don't mention will feel shortchanged and excluded, Lilla writes, as did the two-thirds of white voters without college degrees and the 80 percent of white evangelicals who voted for Trump.

Indeed, Obama's experience in my view offers a valuable model of both liberal success and conservative backlash. His debut national speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was notable for its come-together themes, stressing our commonality as Americans amid our diversity.

Obama was often criticized by those in the farther-left for preferring universalist programs like the Affordable Care Act over programs targeted to African-Americans. But his approach to campaigning and governing carried him to more victories than Clinton's did.

Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, almost one-third flipped to support Trump, according to The Associated Press. Trump also won 194 of the 207 counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012. Of that group, Clinton won only 13.

We will hear endless reasons for Clinton's loss. But I agree with Lilla that her taking of too many groups for granted added to her well-known failures to "connect" with many voters who had voted for Obama.

Trump's ability to win more of the black, Hispanic and women's vote than many expected shows how neither party can rely on changing demographics to bring victories. Voters still want to be asked for their votes.

And identity politics turn up on both sides of the political fence. As one liberal reader responded to Lilla, "Ask conservatives to abandon the identity politics of white Christians and then we'll talk."

Indeed, instead of getting hung up on identity politics, which suggests competition between identity groups, I think both parties need to move back toward coalition politics. Areas of disagreement need not block our way to common ground.

Identity politics is not dead. But both parties could find healthier ways to practice it.